I have a similar, ongoing experience, except it's heard from across the shared kitchen between our bedrooms. My suitemate likes to speak loudly about how she's being PA with me and little comments that I can easily hear when she's chatting with friends. I fear I was overly friendly when she first arrived on base and would knock once a week to see how she was doing. Then we had several situations where I learned I had to keep my door locked at all times when her friends are around.Now, if I have people visit and we're chatting about life, she might come up in conversation. I've chosen to not say anything about her since I assume she could hear it and I don't want to disrespect her. But I'll admit, there are small PA moves that are trying at times. And I try to ignore her if I hear her say or doing something that I know is supposed to get a rise out of me.But I also figure, it's good practice learning to hold my tongue and not react. I only have seven more months here and then I head off to another base!

Ahhh roommates.... the joys of barracks life.

Sorry, just got nostalgic for a second.

« Last Edit: March 26, 2009, 08:43:40 PM by afbluebelle »

Logged

My inner (r-word) is having a field day with this one.-Love is Evol: Christopher Titus-

A few years ago on another board I frequent, there was a post asking folks about their personal beliefs. Oh boy. I happily told about mine, I didn't comment on anyone else's, simply shared mine. Well, sometime later the OP, whose beliefs were apparently the total opposite, took nearly everything I said and dissected it in a multi-post diatribe. Disagree with me, that's just fine, but to attack my views (and they actually said this was what they were doing) and claim that I was ignorant, did incense me. I responded with questionings to their beliefs.

Anyhoodle, another poster chimed in and said I was being rude, hostile and insulting. Excuse me? What about the one who started it? They didn't say anything about the OP for they'd agreed with them, and I didn't feel I'd been what I was being accused of. I felt potshotted by that second poster, but I held back, remained silent and though tough, did not respond, and ignored the thread from then on. It wasn't worth it. Then about a month or so later the poster who claimed me to be insulting, hostile, etc., was suddenly banned from the board (on an unrelated matter). Heh. How come I will always believe is found in Romans 12:19. A little side-note, the OP didn't get banned, but they haven't been around that forum in some years as well. Ah well.

I've seen this a lot in the world opf blogging, and it becomes hard to see your name slandered, and not know what to do. Do you respond? Do you let it go? Write a rebuttal on your own blog? But I agree that taking the high road is a great way to address the situation.

Online libel quickly becomes a legal issue if the libel is defamatory enough to cause damage to reputation. However, there is a legal concept known as "self libeling" where you can do as much damage to your own reputation by responding or talking about it. A good example...I received an angry series of emails from a person claiming a forum member was libeling her, she was pursuing legal action and I was to remove the offending material. When I researched the posts this person had specifically listed, I found no mention of a real name or any other identifying data that could a reasonable person would conclude referred to her. Yet in signing her real and full name to the emails, I now knew who she was. If she further ranted to friends and family about the issue, she created the situation where even more people were exposed to the alleged libel than if she had kept quiet.

Readers Digest had an article about online harrassment and libel a month or so ago. There are some sites out there now that allow their users to be incredibly vicious and hateful. Fighting back against libel by anonymous sources seems a daunting task but RD referenced solutions some have tried with great success. People who engage in tortious activities online should have no expectation to a right of privacy and the courts have been consistently allowing plaintiffs to find out the real names of their anonymous libelers. Once that information is gained, victims have retaliated with lawyer vetted web sites which I don't consider to be retaliatory rudeness at all. A cornerstone of US and UK libel laws is the right of the victim to refute published falsehoods with similarly published rebuttals. In this age where employers will google the names of prospective employees, a web site designed to be found by search engines is a powerful tool.

I've seen this a lot in the world opf blogging, and it becomes hard to see your name slandered, and not know what to do. Do you respond? Do you let it go? Write a rebuttal on your own blog? But I agree that taking the high road is a great way to address the situation.

Online libel quickly becomes a legal issue if the libel is defamatory enough to cause damage to reputation. However, there is a legal concept known as "self libeling" where you can do as much damage to your own reputation by responding or talking about it. A good example...I received an angry series of emails from a person claiming a forum member was libeling her, she was pursuing legal action and I was to remove the offending material. When I researched the posts this person had specifically listed, I found no mention of a real name or any other identifying data that could a reasonable person would conclude referred to her. Yet in signing her real and full name to the emails, I now knew who she was. If she further ranted to friends and family about the issue, she created the situation where even more people were exposed to the alleged libel than if she had kept quiet.

A self-fulfilling prophecy, then.

Did her lawyers send you a demand letter ordering you to remove the material in question, or did you have only her word for it that she was pursuing legal action?

Logged

I'm away from sanity right now...please leave a message after the beep.

Readers Digest had an article about online harrassment and libel a month or so ago. There are some sites out there now that allow their users to be incredibly vicious and hateful. Fighting back against libel by anonymous sources seems a daunting task but RD referenced solutions some have tried with great success. People who engage in tortious activities online should have no expectation to a right of privacy and the courts have been consistently allowing plaintiffs to find out the real names of their anonymous libelers. Once that information is gained, victims have retaliated with lawyer vetted web sites which I don't consider to be retaliatory rudeness at all. A cornerstone of US and UK libel laws is the right of the victim to refute published falsehoods with similarly published rebuttals. In this age where employers will google the names of prospective employees, a web site designed to be found by search engines is a powerful tool.